I recall the controversy not at the time of the actual sinking, but growing after the war, and the famous (infamous) questioning of Thatcher on "Nationwide" (or whatever the programme was called then). Given the research since by many historians that I have read, listened to and watched (including first hand testimony) the sinking if the Belgrano must be looked at in context. At the time a maritime exclusion zone had been declared by Britain. But, there was also an additional warning issued that any ships outside the exclusion zone posing a threat to the RN taskforce would be liable to attack. Belgrano and her escorts were the southern pincer of an attack on the taskforce, with 25 de Mayo as the northern pincer (as I understand). Conqueror was shadowing Belgrano, and another sub (sorry, can't recall the name off the top of my head) 25 de Mayo. Under the announced rules of engagement Belgrano was sunk. The 25 de Mayo (previously HMS Venerable) and her escorts turned and ran for port before the shadowing RN sub could deal with her. Now, when we discuss crimes there was a crime committed that day (in my view). Not a war crime by the RN. But the abandonment of the crew of the Belgrano by her escorts (by the way, also former RN ships sold to Argentina). That was shameful. War crime? No. And why were Belgrano and 25 de Mayo both considered such a risk? Well, Belgrano's guns, 25 de Mayos aircraft but, essentially, the risk they were both armed with Exocet. If you want to know what risk a cutting edge sea skimming missile is, just look at the sinking of the RSF Moska last week. And even without Exocet, the Argentinian Air Force and Naval Air Arm A4 Skyhawks armed with "dumb" bombs sank more British ships than Exocets from their Mirages. Exocet was really the bogeyman for the RN. One of the ships lost from a close in bombing attack was HMS Antelope. A great uncle of mine served aboard the previous HMS Antelope during WWII. His "battlestation" varied, but when her anti aircraft armament was upgraded he became an Oerlikon gunner. Antelope was an escort on various Malta runs, including Pedestal (as well as earlier having been on the first convoy via the North Cape to the USSR). He was amazed, angry and dumbfounded that the modern Antelope had been sunk by a free fall bomb delivered at low altitude, noting that the Italian Air Fleet and the Luftwaffe would have found it hard to do so. Let us not doubt the skills of the Argentinian Navy and Air Force. War is war. War is terrible. But, those who come by the sword.... Sorry this is so long. Been thinking about the correct, reasoned wording for a couple of days. Happy to debate in a grown up, reasoned fashion. Thanks for the great post, Guy.
All quite black and white. The fair game argument stands strong in that Argentina chose to invade/occupy and the consequences of doing so shouldn’t have warranted a debate. A counter-measure by any force, in this case by a superior one, ought to also be at its own discretion. *checks international law, Geneva Convention, but too long to read*
I always thought the primary purpose of the MEZ was as a warning to non belligerent shipping that they would be at risk of attack. Ie if you are inside and you are not British you are assumed to be hostile.
Following on from the war crimes (then and now), and the obvious presence of investigators in Ukraine, has this act ever been formally investigated and rejected as a crime by the court's investigators? I'm unclear as to what constitutes a crime when those harmed are clearly armed military personnel with a significant weapon - whether in a declared theatre of war or not - isn't this just normal military escalation of war? Or is it always a crime to not declare and follow your own rules of engagement?
Apr 18, 2022·edited Apr 18, 2022Liked by Guy Walters
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but at the time, the Belgrano was a clear & present danger to what was effectively a scratch fleet that had never worked together before. And, ultimately, post Belgrano, the Argentinian aircraft carrier withdrew and didn’t actively participate subsequently. This was a major reduction in Argentinian offensive capability.
Yes V interesting and good article with strong points. As a kid my dad often used to talk about the Belgrano sinking so it's something I've always known about
Great article Guy. It should also be remembered that the exclusion zone was put in place for all neutral vessels as a safety measure. It has no relevance to belligerents.
I recall the controversy not at the time of the actual sinking, but growing after the war, and the famous (infamous) questioning of Thatcher on "Nationwide" (or whatever the programme was called then). Given the research since by many historians that I have read, listened to and watched (including first hand testimony) the sinking if the Belgrano must be looked at in context. At the time a maritime exclusion zone had been declared by Britain. But, there was also an additional warning issued that any ships outside the exclusion zone posing a threat to the RN taskforce would be liable to attack. Belgrano and her escorts were the southern pincer of an attack on the taskforce, with 25 de Mayo as the northern pincer (as I understand). Conqueror was shadowing Belgrano, and another sub (sorry, can't recall the name off the top of my head) 25 de Mayo. Under the announced rules of engagement Belgrano was sunk. The 25 de Mayo (previously HMS Venerable) and her escorts turned and ran for port before the shadowing RN sub could deal with her. Now, when we discuss crimes there was a crime committed that day (in my view). Not a war crime by the RN. But the abandonment of the crew of the Belgrano by her escorts (by the way, also former RN ships sold to Argentina). That was shameful. War crime? No. And why were Belgrano and 25 de Mayo both considered such a risk? Well, Belgrano's guns, 25 de Mayos aircraft but, essentially, the risk they were both armed with Exocet. If you want to know what risk a cutting edge sea skimming missile is, just look at the sinking of the RSF Moska last week. And even without Exocet, the Argentinian Air Force and Naval Air Arm A4 Skyhawks armed with "dumb" bombs sank more British ships than Exocets from their Mirages. Exocet was really the bogeyman for the RN. One of the ships lost from a close in bombing attack was HMS Antelope. A great uncle of mine served aboard the previous HMS Antelope during WWII. His "battlestation" varied, but when her anti aircraft armament was upgraded he became an Oerlikon gunner. Antelope was an escort on various Malta runs, including Pedestal (as well as earlier having been on the first convoy via the North Cape to the USSR). He was amazed, angry and dumbfounded that the modern Antelope had been sunk by a free fall bomb delivered at low altitude, noting that the Italian Air Fleet and the Luftwaffe would have found it hard to do so. Let us not doubt the skills of the Argentinian Navy and Air Force. War is war. War is terrible. But, those who come by the sword.... Sorry this is so long. Been thinking about the correct, reasoned wording for a couple of days. Happy to debate in a grown up, reasoned fashion. Thanks for the great post, Guy.
Ooh this is very interesting - never even heard of it. Any recommendations for a beginner’s guide to the Falklands?
All quite black and white. The fair game argument stands strong in that Argentina chose to invade/occupy and the consequences of doing so shouldn’t have warranted a debate. A counter-measure by any force, in this case by a superior one, ought to also be at its own discretion. *checks international law, Geneva Convention, but too long to read*
I always thought the primary purpose of the MEZ was as a warning to non belligerent shipping that they would be at risk of attack. Ie if you are inside and you are not British you are assumed to be hostile.
Following on from the war crimes (then and now), and the obvious presence of investigators in Ukraine, has this act ever been formally investigated and rejected as a crime by the court's investigators? I'm unclear as to what constitutes a crime when those harmed are clearly armed military personnel with a significant weapon - whether in a declared theatre of war or not - isn't this just normal military escalation of war? Or is it always a crime to not declare and follow your own rules of engagement?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but at the time, the Belgrano was a clear & present danger to what was effectively a scratch fleet that had never worked together before. And, ultimately, post Belgrano, the Argentinian aircraft carrier withdrew and didn’t actively participate subsequently. This was a major reduction in Argentinian offensive capability.
Good piece.
Yes V interesting and good article with strong points. As a kid my dad often used to talk about the Belgrano sinking so it's something I've always known about
Great article Guy. It should also be remembered that the exclusion zone was put in place for all neutral vessels as a safety measure. It has no relevance to belligerents.
Good piece.